NEWS: Richest Rapist?

gracias. and you are not ugly, so cool it.

Not sure if anyone said this, but hopefully he will use his money to pay for some ass instead of raping people...

The guy doesn't probably "deserve" the money, but he should get it. I agree with the above statements about it being a lottery and everybody is entitled to their winnings. This isn't much different than convicted criminals making money in jail by writing books and creating websites. They gave him a sentence of so many years, if they wanted more opportunities to punish him then they should have said so when they handed out the sentence.

It makes a change from Lottery Louts

Who drive old bangers (cars if that does not translate to American) and make noise at all times of the day and the night.

David Blunkett is "Home Secretary", he's the minister in charge of the "Home Office", who are the department responsible for law and order. He's part of the UK government.

He often pops up after some high profile case and comes out with some nonsense.

sorry to be a feminist on you here but RAPE IS NOT SEX.

Thank you, xer0yne.

I'm glad you straightened him out. I'm sure he gets the two mixed up on a regular basis and no one here knew what the difference was.

Anyhow, you can not retroactively punish someone for a crime. Fining someone money down the road for a crime committed before (and convicted and punishment handed out) could be applied to other crimes than rape. While I'm sure almost everyone uncluding myself agrees that rape is horrible, I don't want the neo cons trying to knock on my door in 15 years telling me that I owe them more for some silly crime (lets say possession) because now I have a good paying job. If something is to be done either a) the lottery should change it's rules or b) a punishment that includes future fines based on wealth should be implimented.

Now, that seems a very valid point. I do have to wonder if even a multi-millionaire would get hit for 7million. And to be frank, the idea of retroactive penalties does kind of rub me the wrong way. But then again, the idea of taking ability to pay into account when setting fines does so also (although I do understand why that would be the case)

Is there is no civil lawsuit process in the UK by which this man's specific victims might recover money for pain and suffering?

If there is, wouldn't it come right after the criminal trial. It's been years since that by now. And you can't do it twice.

Nobody who wins a lottery has "earned" their money. Do they deserve it anyway? Hell yes they do. To not award the winnings after the fact is simply wrong, however to place new rules on the lottery affecting future games would be comepletely in line. The guy may very well be a total douche bag, but to allow, and even support, the government to enact laws and penalties retro-actively is irresponsible and indicates a people that deserve to be oppressed!!!


Beat me senseless!!!

TKS

Actually, I found this hilarious. What a fucking break! I'm sure victim's rights groups are going insane over this, as they should, I suppose.

Whether he's changed or not, though, it's his money. And like some of you said, he served his time, so there's no reason he should have it taken away.

I mean, they want to make a law saying ex-cons can't win the lottery? How fucking stupid is that? That's like saying ex-cons can't own real estate...

i think the point here is, we need to protect the lowest common denominator from getting screwed by an unfair system to ensure our own protection from getting screwed by that system. whether you like it or not, the system has no recourse here, criminally, and it shouldn't; if it did, everyone in that society would be subject to arbitrary and spontaneous rejudgement for crimes that may or may not have been commited and had already served time for.

Ms Blears is a Home Office minister, she works for David Blunkett.

The article doesn't say how long he has served, or how many rapes he commited. Life does not mean life in the UK.

This pisses me off just about as much as when I see lottery winners on TV, in front of their large homes with 2 Mercedes and a Porsche already in the driveway.
Like they need it.

He deserves the money just as much as anyone else would. He bought the ticket, he won, it's his money. If the British legal system has any provisions that figure in "ability to pay", they would have to be based on ability at the time of the crime. It's unfair to change his punishment after he's been assigned a punishment unless new crimes are discovered. Should we just randomly tack on an extra few years while we're taking his money away?

Another interesting question.....is it the source of the money that bothers people? Would it be different if he had inherited the money from a rich aunt or something?

I was about to say that the word 'cunt' makes me horny.